@Ylecun perpetuates false dichotomy here, between nature & nurture, without presenting data. Is there any evidence primates have fewer innate priors than mountain goats? Any proof that more innate priors actually entails less adaptivity? Better priors can yield *better* learning.https://twitter.com/ylecun/status/1180171721481113602 …
-
-
Replying to @GaryMarcus @ylecun
learning =/= adaptivity, though. Better priors, if known, can indeed confer better performance. At an extreme you hand code the solution directly and have zero free parameters. But the more priors/structure, the less a model can be applied to different tasks (adaptability)
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
So for a system that can solve a multitude of different tasks, the question is whether it is built of a multitude of specialized sub-components each with unique priors, or a less specialized mush, or something in between?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I believe
@ylecun is on the record advocating for the *minimal* set of maximally powerful built in structure (e.g., convolution being one)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
in his debate with me he advocated for zero, not even convolution. the question is how minimal the minimal set should be, ala einstein’s simple but not simpler.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.